Opinion
2011-08-16
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Paul THORNTON, appellant.
Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.
Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered October 20, 2008, convicting him of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at the suppression
hearing established that his statements were made after he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694). “A defendant who refuses to sign a written waiver of his rights, including a Miranda rights card, may nevertheless orally waive his [or her] rights” ( People v. Saunders, 71 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 898 N.Y.S.2d 168; see People v. Robinson, 287 A.D.2d 398, 731 N.Y.S.2d 709). Here, although the defendant did not sign the waiver on his Miranda rights card, he impliedly waived his rights by willingly answering police questions after declining to sign the card ( see People v. Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968, 563 N.Y.S.2d 730, 565 N.E.2d 479; People v. Ridgeway, 101 A.D.2d 555, 562, 476 N.Y.S.2d 940, affd. 64 N.Y.2d 952, 488 N.Y.S.2d 641, 477 N.E.2d 1095). Further, the evidence at the suppression hearing did not establish that the defendant was intoxicated to the degree of mania, or that he was unable to understand the meaning of his statements as a consequence of intoxication ( see People v. Hernandez, 67 A.D.3d 820, 889 N.Y.S.2d 218; People v. Shields, 295 A.D.2d 374, 742 N.Y.S.2d 909). Accordingly, the County Court correctly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
The defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the judgment of conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that he was operating the subject vehicle or that he was intoxicated. However, only his challenge to the prosecution's alleged failure to establish that he was operating the vehicle is preserved for appellate review ( see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Basagoitia, 55 A.D.3d 619, 620, 865 N.Y.S.2d 313). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Totman, 208 A.D.2d 970, 971, 617 N.Y.S.2d 234).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
Since the defendant failed to move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial, he has waived that claim ( see People v. Lawrence, 64 N.Y.2d 200, 203, 485 N.Y.S.2d 233, 474 N.E.2d 593; People v. Heman, 198 A.D.2d 434, 605 N.Y.S.2d 913).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).